“For to this end Christ died, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.” Romans 14. 8, 9.

+

~ FOR MODERN MEN & WOMEN, losing any sense of Death, Judgment, Heaven Or Hell leads inevitably & directly to man acting as a self-judging mini-god. That leads to warfare, supremacism, mercilessness, and getting away with things. Thence madness, violence, lies, and 2018.

As I’ve been reading about our Western cultural elites, I’m shocked/ not shocked by what the rich & powerful do behind the scenes. Many ordinary people likewise.

But what if there IS a right & wrong? Good & evil? What if we are accountable? Much of ordinary human life is all about distracting us, crushing silence and unsettling thoughts and questions.

What if all desires are known, and no secrets truly hidden? What if our old unrepented forgotten hidden sins have not just dissolved with time? What if the evil whispers shall be shouted from the rooftops in That Day?

What if God is as the Church has taught, and we are a few missed heartbeats & breaths from standing naked & defenceless before His perfect infinite goodness.. and love?

Pray this day for those who have gone before us through the veil, especially our friends & enemies, family & benefactors, and all those who died with nobody to pray for them and with them.

O FATHER of all, we pray to thee for those whom we love but see no longer. Grant them thy peace; and in thy loving wisdom and almighty power, work in them the good purpose of thy perfect will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

]]>https://steynian.wordpress.com/2018/11/02/in-that-day/feed/0binky800px-MemlingJudgmentCentrehttps://steynian.wordpress.com/2018/11/02/in-that-day/Let’s Be Revolting?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FreeMarkSteyn/~3/Vc-lXs2tLPU/
https://steynian.wordpress.com/2018/09/18/lets-be-revolting/#respondTue, 18 Sep 2018 14:30:30 +0000http://steynian.wordpress.com/?p=20277More]]>“If only we kick out the Romans”, thought the Zealots, “then a perfect Kingdom on earth will come to pass.”

~ SURELY BY NOW GOD has had enough of our corrupt governments and perverse churches and fallen ways? Isn’t a revolution in order?

Fire them all, burn it down, start over! We’ll do better! May the last aristocrat be strangled with the entrails of the last priest, etc., and so on.

A softer and stupider version of this revolution has taken hold in our schools, and many parts of our overgrown government, not to mention in the leadership of many churches and sects. The revolution seems like a good idea, until (1) you actually see what it entails, and (2) your remember that it’s the same bent and failing human nature out of which perfection and utopia will come, (3) “They”, the horrible ones with power, are the same as most of us, if we had their power & opportunities. Salvation comes not via good intentions.

What then? Shall we be enamoured of the old evils, or favour new ones?

First Things.. First

The teaching of Jesus as worked out in the early Church set’s up some distinctives. Unlike the zealots of Israel, the Kingdom of Jesus comes by His blood, not the blood of cadres and their victims. We cannot abandon God and His love, in an impatient practical atheism.

St. Paul makes it even clearer. We must remember: the kings he’s talking about are the divine Caesars. At the time of the writing of his Letter to the Roman Christians, about AD 57-58, it’s one Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus. Yup, THAT Nero.

His Mommy Dearest had helpfully prepared the way for her darling Nero by murdering the previous Emperor, Claudius, in October of AD 54, just two or three years before Paul wrote his Letter to the Church in Rome. Under this same Nero would come the first great persecution of the Church, including the executions of Saints Peter and Paul in Rome. Pretty grim.

Yet– surely Paul could see the injustices, the persecuting ways, the false divinity of such so-called sons of the gods, and Emperors over the earth? Of course he could. But he also knew that Jesus the divine Son did not win that kind of victory over the world, the flesh and the devil. “My Kingdom is not of this world”, says King Jesus to Pontius Pilate.

Get Yer Reading Glasses

Romans 13:

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

Whatever the law may be, do better. Whatever situation you are in, honour the Lord, and see in the powers that be– however imperfect– signs of the overarching rule of heaven. Why? Paul writes:

“Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”

Behold a Kingdom in the world, but not OF this world– not sharing it’s dreams, devices & desires, its fallen and failing ways. Not of one race or only for men or for women, the reborn sons and daughters of the Risen King Jesus are not revolters, burners, subverters, utopians, impatient for perfection now, on their terms.

Here we have no abiding city; here our hearts are not set forever. We are pilgrims, travelling on our way home, yet leaving all things and people better than we found them: redeemed, blessed, brought to God.

How Does This Work?

“For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity.

The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners.

As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring.[19] They have a common table, but not a common bed.

They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified.

They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.”

Sounds Like Conversion

The world is imperfect, and so am I, and so are you. Therefore, I’m not interested in any revolution, powered by pride, envy and vengeance, built out of the house of cards that is fallen human wisdom. Our Kingdom is not of this world, yet by truly seeking it, we transform lives and societies, and the world around us– or we are supposed to do so.

Our way is His way, if we are His and He is ours. It requires effort, love, repentance, sacrifice, and a painful transformation by grace. Groan: sounds a bit too much like work, doesn’t it?

“Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” [St. Matthew, 5]

Burn it all down? Leave? Slay all the sinners? Seek that greener crass in some imagined perfection just over there? Sounds like the exact opposite of taking up our respective crosses, and following Him, loving & converting souls, and redeeming all the things by His grace, and in His name.

~ SO.. THE ACADIA University, Wolfville NS, cowardly & bullying powers that be finally pulled the trigger on their troublesome prof, just days before the beginning of Fall term. Except.. he’s not shutting up, or going away quietly. Awkward.

Until 2015 or so, Rick says he was a standard Lefty prof. No problems, complaints, or random accusations to be seen. Then, he woke up (partly via Jordan Peterson, and others), and looked around academia and noticed free speech & open discussion of important issues– in psychology & the wider curricula– were verboten. And at his beloved increasingly Soviet Acadia, too.

Uh-Oh Uppity Prof!

So in 2015, he stopped being an obedient tenured diversity hire, and started asking questions, speaking out, attending conferences, making popular videos, and befriending various Canadian thought criminals. That was unacceptable, and from that moment on, the current Acadia regime, USSR-style, tried to scare him, silence him, dig up every malcontent & unhappy soul connected with him to register accusations, since as we know, accused = guilty. Now, they’re trying to vanish him.

Raise Some Noise

There are few wars so petty and spiteful as academic wars. Not only is Acadia still trying to cover up, but to cover up the cover-up. Thing is, they feed off some of our taxes to run the Dear Old U.– thus, they owe the public & our elected officials a FULL & PROPER accounting of what looks like a professional assassination of character & reputation. If you’re giving full credit to the vague accusations, you might want to rethink that: this situation has been very much one of “A fair trial, then the firing-squad”.

Speak out. Write to the Acadia authorities, and be sure to CC: your letter to Parliament Hill, the media, the premier, local newspapers, and your local MLA. Put the CC-forwards at the bottom of your letter/ e-mail to Acadia. If you want it posted on my blog, then send it to me: binks-dot-webelf-at-gmail-dot-com.

And if you’re a prayer-person, do pray for this man, who went from “Woke” to actually AWAKE in three years, and got fired for it. You gotta know that such events take a toll on a man, no matter who you are. So why not drop him a note of encouragement, via his FaceBook page?

Binks

Statement by Rick Mehta Regarding His Dismissal from Acadia University

SUMMARY

On August 31, 2018, President Peter Ricketts fired me from my position of Associate Professor of Psychology at Acadia University. In the letter that he gave me at my dismissal hearing, he stated that he was firing me on the basis of issues that “were wide ranging and include failure to fufill [my] academic responsibilities, unprofessional conduct, breach of privacy, and harassment and intimidation of students and other members of the University community.”

President Ricketts’ letter of dismissal states only broad categories of misconduct instead of providing any specific examples of misconduct on my part. The university hid behind vague accusations and opaque investigations, while refusing to spell out their concerns – which were based on filtered complaints. I believe that their stealth charges were pretexts to get rid of me at any cost. The real reason for my dismissal has to do with a culture war that is taking place in universities all over Canada and much of the Western world.

Since the 1990s, the political composition of academia has shifted dramatically to the left. At this time, the political composition of academics is skewed so that the left side of the political spectrum is far overrepresented relative to the right side; in other words, there is a lack of political diversity in modern academia. One consequence of having large groups of people thinking in a similar fashion is that it creates ideal conditions for extreme positions to take root. A second consequence is that it creates ideal conditions in which one group becomes dominant and does not tolerate voices of dissent.

At this time, many universities in Canada (Acadia included) are changing their mission to that of pursuing social justice instead of searching for universal truths. Social justice is focussed on an uncompromising commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion. In my role as a free speech advocate, I have challenged many of the views that are dominant at Acadia. Rather than refute me, my detractors have instead stated that they are opposed to the manner in which I have expressed my arguments, that I have created a climate of fear on campus and/or social media, and that I have harassed and intimidated those with whom I disagree. In addition, my attempts to defend myself against these accusations have been framed as behaviours that are unethical or immoral.

In the sections that follow, I will first provide background information about myself so that readers can get an idea of how dedicated I am to maximizing students’ academic success. I will then explain the events that led me to become a free speech advocate, the events that led to the MacKay and Hooper Reports that form the basis for dismissing me, and the final events that preceded my precipitous dismissal. I will then end with my closing thoughts as I look to the future in this fight that has national implications for academic freedom in Canada.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 2003 – 2017

Until I was fired from Acadia University, I was a tenured professor of psychology who had worked at the university for 15 years. During this time, I taught:

a) two large sections of Introductory Psychology (a total of roughly 300 to 400 students enrolled in a typical year) for almost every year of my career since 2005, the exception being the one year when I was on sabbatical

b) one section of Research Design and Analysis 1 (a course required by all psychology majors; enrolment typically ranged between 80 and 120 students in a given year) since September 2010.

I highlight the above courses because these courses are required courses for all psychology majors and speaks to the department’s trust in my abilities to teach these courses for so many years.

I have also taught the following two courses on more than two occasions during my career at Acadia: Physiological Psychology (a second year course; course enrolment is capped at 75 students) and Hormones, Drugs and Behaviour (a third year course; course enrolment is capped at 40 students).

In September 2012, after participating in the Faculty Development Summer Institute (a teaching workshop hosted at the University of Prince Edward Island), I had pronounced success with my teaching between September 2012 and April 2017. In the 2015-2016 academic year, I received the best course evaluations in my career – both in terms of the numerical ratings that the students gave me and the comments that they provided. In the 2016-2017 academic year, I was the recipient of two awards from the Acadia Student Union. These successes were in addition to the emails and cards that I have received throughout my career from current or former students who have thanked me for my commitment to their success.

I was also fortunate in that the messages that I conveyed in class and online seemed to strongly resonate with students. My greatest success on this front occurred when I was quoted for the following statement on the Humans of Acadia Facebook page: “I think the big thing is the little things mean the most. You don’t always change the world with a big act, but a million small acts can make a difference.” This post generated 501 positive responses (“likes” and “loves”). If one were to search the Humans of Acadia Facebook page, they would be hard pressed to find any faculty member at Acadia who, as of this statement, has generated a more strong positive response.

Outside of teaching, I had a strong service record thought my career at Acadia; I will describe only the highlights here. I served on numerous committees in my department and at the university. Of these tasks, the one I found most rewarding was being the co-op representative for my department because this position allowed me to give students feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of their presentations on their co-op placements; I also had an opportunity to see the students’ presentations improve over time.

I contributed to the discipline of psychology by serving as Chair of the Psychology Division of Science Atlantic (a group that promotes science in the Maritime region of Canada) between 2007 and 2012, and by organizing a successful Science Atlantic Undergraduate Psychology conference that was held at Acadia in 2012.

I contributed to the community by working with two student groups advocating for mental health, giving presentations pertaining to mental health at a local high school and the opening of the Peer Support Centre at Acadia, and participating in a video on suicide awareness (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbiHJ_zOiz4).

My research area was in cognition, specifically decision making. The majority of my research productivity was in the form of conference presentations as opposed to publications in peer-reviewed journals. An inspection of my academic resume would reveal that my strengths were in my teaching and service, but not in my research productivity.

With regard to my teaching, I believe that my success was due to my commitment to helping students reach their maximum academic and personal potential. In the remaining part of this section, I will explain what made me unique as a teacher. For brevity, I will focus on my efforts at maximizing students’ academic potential. I will also omit the honours students that I have supervised and the graduate student committees on which I have served – although I will mention that at the time that I was fired, a) I was supervising one graduate student who was half-way through her Master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and b) I was about to start supervising a new Master’s student. Both of these students will need to find new supervisors in order to complete their degrees.

In my courses, the first priority for me was to ensure that students understood the content that I wanted them to learn. To do this, I repeatedly asked for and gave feedback to my students on how well they were mastering the concepts. In my courses, I would often review one example and ensure that students understood the example that I reviewed. I would then give students a problem to work on and, after ensuring they had enough time to work on the problem, would provide feedback on what was the correct answer and why that answer was the correct one. Lastly, I would ask if I had overlooked anything or if there was a perspective I had missed before I continued covering course content. This was a technique that I used in all of my classes.

In the “Research Design and Analysis 1” class, which is a required course that has both a high failure rate and a low attendance rate, I structured the course so that 4% of students’ final grade came from completing written participation exercises. The intention was to help address the issue of low attendance and provide students with an informal form of feedback in order to help them succeed on the exams that they wrote for me.
In every week in which a midterm was not held, I gave out one exercise in which I expected that students would attempt the problem that I had given them to the best of their ability. As long as I had the impression that students had made an honest attempt to complete the problem I had provided, they attained a point that went towards their participation grade. After class was over, I provided written feedback to each student to help them improve their response. At the next class, I returned the participation exercises to the students and reviewed any themes that emerged when I was “marking” the exercises so that students knew where they needed to focus their efforts for their upcoming exams. I noticed that attendance in my classes improved after I started implementing the participation exercises: Before I implemented them, class attendance appeared to be in the 40% range, but after I implemented them, attendance typically ranged between 60% and 80%. The grades seemed to vary depending on the composition of the class in a given year.

Finally, in almost all of the courses that I have taught since September 2012, I have hosted “help sessions” prior to each exam so that students could meet with me in an informal setting to ask me questions about the course content. My reasoning was that students often find it intimidating – especially in their early years of university – to go to their professors’ offices. To reduce this perceived barrier, I held sessions outside of regular business hours (e.g., if the exam was going to be written on a Wednesday, I held the help session from 5 to 7 pm on the Tuesday evening prior the exam) and at a neutral public location on campus so that the students and I could meet simply as human beings communicating with one another. Unlike my office hours, which were poorly attended, my help sessions were well attended.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION (2017 – 2018): BECOMING A FREE SPEECH ADVOCATE

Between 2015 and 2017, I was troubled by the protests and cancellation of talks at universities that I read about in the news with seemingly increasing frequency. I thought that this phenomenon was more of an issue for the United States than Canada until I started following the controversy involving Dr. Jordan Peterson (University of Toronto) and his stance regarding Bill C-16.

In the early part of 2017, Acadia University was searching for its next President. On March 27, I submitted the concerns that I had with Dr. Ricketts being the next President of Acadia University in a letter that I submitted to the Presidential Search Committee. The major concerns that I will focus on here were twofold: 1) unlike the other candidate, he had not emphasized the importance of critical thinking or listening to a diverse range of perspectives in order to build consensus before making any decisions, and 2) he stated that he planned to commit Acadia to social justice. I was concerned about the prospect of a university committing itself to any ideology and the implications that it had for free speech. However, my letter had little impact: Dr. Ricketts became the President of Acadia University.

While I was concerned about Dr. Ricketts becoming the President of Acadia, I thought that I might be able to change the administration’s mind by organizing and leading an ongoing discussion on free speech among the faculty at Acadia. After classes and exams were over in the Winter 2017 semester, I organized a panel discussion on free speech, which was held on May 3. The video for the panel discussion is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rRfkDJP_NQ&t=5272s

The panel consisted of Dr. Erin Crandall (Acadia), Dr. Mark Mercer (Saint Mary’s University), Dr. Marc Ramsay (Acadia), and Dr. Stephen Perrott (Mount Saint Vincent University). The first hour consisted of the panel discussion and the second hour consisted of questions and answers with the panel.

There were two points that stood out to me from the event. The first was that early in the discussion, Dr. Ramsay said that he did not believe that there was a free speech crisis at university campuses, but later in the discussion he said that he self-censors and that he was worried about colleagues at other universities watching the video. The second was the manner in which the people who were opposed to free speech expressed their opposition during the question and answer period. That is, rather than asking questions, they appeared to go on rants that were expressed incoherently, and often in a rude and/or an aggressive manner.

While I did receive lots of positive feedback from many of my colleagues about the panel discussion, the ongoing discussion that I hoped would occur on campus over the summer never materialized. Instead of letting the issue go, I decided to give a comprehensive talk on the topic of free speech on September 27, 2017, which I titled “Free Speech in Universities: Threats and Opportunities”. The talk is posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u73kjWyRRWU&t=553s.

In the talk, one of the points I raised is that the political composition of the professoriate has shifted dramatically to the left since the 1990s and that this shift has implications for the types of research questions that are asked, the way that data are interpreted, and the way in which dissenting views would be tolerated in an academic environment. I concluded the talk by recommending that Acadia adopt the University of Chicago’s Principles of Free Expression.

The goal behind the talk was to produce a document in video form that was thoroughly researched and therefore could be submitted to a body on campus such as Senate, yet also be accessible to a lay person in the general public. As well, the approach I took was to win over people who were opposed to free speech, as opposed to produce a talk that would preach to people who already agreed with me. In other words, I was diligent about taking a balanced approach when I researched the topic and presented my talk. Finally, to ensure that people could verify the information that I was providing for themselves, I included the slides that I used and a reference section that was 20 pages long when I posted the video onto my YouTube page; I also circulated these materials to the faculty and staff at Acadia.

From an objective perspective, the talk that I gave was a success. There were 46 to 50 people (mostly students) who attended the talk and another 256 people who listened to a livestream of the talk that was hosted by Axe Radio (a campus radio station). This would be the equivalent of having the largest lecture hall at Acadia’s campus being full on a night that classes were being held.

Based on the reaction that I received from the students and community members in the audience, my subjective impression was that the talk went smoothly. However, I received rude responses from two of the three faculty members who were in attendance. Dr Jeffrey Sachs (Politics) seemingly discounted my entire talk because he had an issue with two slides (out of a total of 71 slides) I had presented. Dr. Eva Curry (Math & Statistics) discounted my entire talk because, according to her, all I presented was anecdotal evidence.

After the talk, I sent an email message to a list that goes to the faculty and staff at Acadia in which I stated that I wanted my talk to be considered an official submission to Acadia’s review of its strategic plan. But this was to no avail. I received one email message from a colleague saying that they were going to submit their own counterproposals. At the time, I did not understand why they copied Dean Hooper and a member of Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) – Acadia on this message, but I have since learned that copying a superior (in this case, the Dean) on a message is a way for employees to ask their superior to discipline their colleague.

On November 15, 2017, Dr. Curry sent out an email message to Acadia-FYI in which she said that my talk was “in many ways, the worst violation of academic integrity that I have seen at Acadia”. This point is significant because Acadia-FYI is a public forum in which email messages on this list go primarily to faculty and staff who subscribe to the list, but also to some students, retirees, community members, and alumni. In other words, my integrity was being questioned in an open forum.

In my response to Dr. Curry’s message, I noted that all she had done was make allegations against me but did not provide evidence for them (e.g., “You misrepresented opposing viewpoints and did not present all arguments in good faith.”). I also noted that her first allegation, that I had not provided any supporting sources or bibliography, was outright false because I had circulated my slides and reference section to the faculty and staff email list while I was waiting for the video of my talk to be ready to post. I did not respond to the rest of her allegations because they were just as preposterous as her first, and presumably her strongest, allegation.

In the next two sections, I will outline in turn a) the major events that preceded the investigation by Professor Wayne MacKay and b) the major events that preceded the inquiry by Dean Jeff Hooper. These two Reports formed the basis for my dismissal.

EVENTS LEADING TO MACKAY REPORT

The main point for this section is to provide evidence that supports my belief that the major events that led to the administration commissioning the MacKay Report were complaints from the women’s groups on campus, e.g., WISE-Acadia and faculty in the Women and Gender Studies program at Acadia.

In mid-December 2017 and early January 2018, I sent email messages to the Acadia-FYI distribution list in which I criticized views that are dominant at university campuses in the hopes that my emails would lead to a meaningful discussion. Unfortunately, the discussion that I was hoping for never materialized. In the paragraphs that follow, I describe the content of the email messages that I sent out and the most noteworthy responses that I received to each message.

On December 13, 2017, I sent an email message to Acadia-FYI and to the students in both my lab and my courses in which I criticized an article on the topic of gender inequities in academia that was published in the student newspaper (the Athenaeum). Specifically, I stated that there were findings that were overlooked in an article that was published by the Science Editor. The purpose of the email message was to counter the position that the only explanation for wage disparities and discrepant rates of participation between men and women in academia has to do with systemic discrimination. I explained the following five points: 1) that there was evidence to show that lesbians earn more than their heterosexual counterparts and that gay males earn less than their heterosexual counterparts; 2) that one landmark study showed that women were less likely to apply to positions in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) but were more likely to be interviewed and hired; 3) that choices of career and lifestyle play a role in the wage disparities observed between men and women; 4) that the evidence for implicit bias and stereotype threat – the conventional explanations for various inequities – is weak; and 5) that it’s possible that overblowing the weak evidence for systemic discrimination is itself a major barrier to women’s participation in academia.

One colleague responded to me and copied Vice President Academic (VPA) Heather Hemming on their response. The colleague, who admitted to being a member of WISE-Acadia, stated that I put the student who wrote the article in a position of potential risk and that I “could have easily made [my] points about women in science without naming the student, or even referencing the article.” I also was not clear on what my colleague meant when she said that VPA Hemming “ultimately has the responsibility for the students [sic] well being.” The message that I received from this college marked the second time that a complaint against me involved a member of WISE-Acadia (as a reminder, the first time was after I sent out an email message to the faculty and staff email list in which I was submitting my talk on free speech for consideration in the upcoming review of the university’s strategic plan).

On January 5, 2018, I sent an email message to Dr. Jeff Hennessy and Acadia-FYI in which I outlined my concerns with the university’s decolonization initiatives. The response that I received was rude and dismissive. According to the employment lawyer Howard Levitt, the response that Dr. Hennessy gave to me would have gotten him fired if the same type of email exchange had taken place in the private sector.

The points that I raise here (e.g., Dr. Curry’s rude behaviour at my talk and her attempt to defame me in a public forum; Dr. Hennessy’s rude response to me in a public forum) speak to the working conditions that I experienced. I could also provide examples about how other professors have treated me on social media, but am omitting them to reduce the length of my statement.

As bad as my working conditions were after I gave my talk on free speech in September 2017, they further deteriorated after a tweet I had sent to Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer became headline news on January 9, 2018

First, I lost the Introductory Psychology and Research Design and Analysis 1 courses that I had taught for years. The only reason I was given was that there were “concerns” about me teaching those courses, but these “concerns” were never explained to me. I appealed the department’s decision to Dean Hooper, but he denied my appeal and stated that discipline was not being invoked in the change to my teaching allocations. I later came across a different explanation when I read an article written on the Aboriginal People’s Television Network web site (http://aptnnews.ca/…/beyak-effect-fighting-anti-indigenous…/). Specifically, I will quote the following sentence from this article: “Scott Roberts, a spokesperson for the university, says Acadia will not be issuing a public statement regarding Mehta’s comments or behaviour but is ‘currently providing solutions for students who have raised concerns so they are not forced to take a course from Dr. Mehta.’”

Second, I ended up being forced to end my working relationship with the student group known as AUPA (Acadia University Psychology Association). For years, I ran my own help sessions for my courses and AUPA organized student-run help sessions that were independent from my help sessions. In the past, I never had any problems with this set up. However, after AUPA had run their help session on January 29, I received complaints from students in my course saying that they were confused about what content to study for their midterm. I also had to calm one student down over email because they reported that they were “freaking out” and did not know how to prepare for my exam because the information in AUPA’s Help Session Practice Slides made them feel blindsided, even though that student had attended all of my classes. Another student in my course commented that the students who ran AUPA’s help session made adverse comments about my personal and professional integrity. On February 6, 2018, I emailed the two co-chairs of AUPA to let them know that I was ending my working relationship with the student group and why I was doing it; as well, I asked the co-chairs to forward my message to the rest of the AUPA Executive.

Third, VPA Hemming informed me on February 13, 2018, that I was being investigated by Professor MacKay because “The University has a legal responsibility to provide an environment free from discrimination, sexual harassment and personal harassment. The nature and frequency of these complaints and significance of the allegations is concerning for the University, and we have determined the necessity of proceeding to a formal investigation”. Later in the letter, she stated that the university had retained the services of Professor Wayne MacKay (a well-respected professor of law) to conduct the investigation and author what would later be known as the MacKay Report.

I received this letter from VPA Hemming one week after Dr. Anne Quema, the coordinator for the Women and Gender Studies Program at Acadia, had sent out an email message to Acadia-FYI in which her last sentence stated: “Women’s and Gender Studies et Recherches Feministes Executive Committee stands in solidarity with all those who continue to teach and speak out on university and college campuses in an increasingly chilly climate where boundaries of academic freedom are marked at the intersection of so-called ‘freedom of speech.’”

The above point is relevant because I had expanded on the points I had addressed in my criticism of the article in the student newspaper (gender inequities in academia) when I was covering the topic of Intelligence in my Introductory Psychology classes on January 17 and 19. I then provided a feminist critique of the education system on February 9, in which I presented the argument that our education system works against the interests of boys.

In other words, VPA Hemming informed me I was being investigated one week after Dr. Quema had sent out her email message to a public forum and four days after I had yet again criticized positions taken by faculty in the Women and Gender Studies Program. It is worth noting that I have been the only faculty member on campus who had been an outspoken advocate for free speech.

After I had received the letter of investigation from VPA Hemming, I continued to challenge views that are dominant on university campuses in my Introductory Psychology 2 course. For example, when I covered the chapter on Stress and Health, I stated how the evidence for university classes being “safe spaces” was weak. In the chapter on Social Behaviour, I argued against “white guilt” and “white privilege”, provided evidence for the argument that Black Lives Matter does not speak for the Black community, presented a video featuring Black social commentator Larry Elder discussing issues such as Black on Black crime, and presented evidence for the argument that a major source of the hate and division that is observed in modern society is the identity politics that are being taught in universities in the Western world. I also asserted that the behaviour of the small group of disruptive students who were unwilling to even listen to a different perspective was in line with behaviour exhibited by cult members.

EVENTS LEADING TO HOOPER REPORT

In a meeting held on May 17 2018, Dean Hooper informed me that he had decided to launch an inquiry into my conduct. This inquiry was based primarily on six issues that were brought to his attention by Dr. Rob Raeside (Designated Head for Rick Mehta). The six issues were:

1. Content on a test that was not dealt with in class or in assigned readings
2. Spending excessive time in class on non-class-related-matters
3. Use of non-academic sources for lecture content
4. Making provocative racist and transphobic comments in class to the extent that some students felt too uncomfortable to attend classes
5. I had posted audio recordings of my classes on Dropbox. In the class of February 6, a student loudly proclaimed that she was raped, even though the topic being covered had nothing to do with any form of domestic violence. That same student later complained that I had breached her privacy by posting the recording of the class (including her comment) online.
6. I had posted my appeal of my teaching allocations on Dropbox. Because I had referred to colleagues in my department in that document, Dr. Raeside claimed that my act of posting my document online could be construed as defamatory.

With regard to the first item, I never received any complaints from students about the content on my exams being based on material that I did not cover in class. Students typically first talk to their professor if there is a problem with their test. As well, Dr. Raeside was not able to tell me which item or items did not come from my class or assigned readings. I therefore never understood why Dr. Raeside raised this issue.

With regard to the second and third items, there is no policy at Acadia University that dictates how professors structure their classes, or what sources they can or cannot use for their classes.

With regard to the fourth item, Dr. Raeside never told me what was the comment that I made that supposedly was racist or transphobic.

Finally, with regard to the fifth and sixth items, these issues appear to be legal issues as opposed to ones having to do with me fulfilling my professional responsibilities. If I was breaking any laws, it would have been easy for Dr. Raeside or Dean Hooper to first consult with a lawyer before letting me know which statute I was breaking; we could have then dealt with the issue accordingly.

EVENTS PRECEDING MY DISMISSAL

On August 3, 2018, I received a letter from VPA Hemming that explained the administration’s grounds for calling to meet with me to discuss the issue of discipline. The meeting ended up being held on the morning of August 23. That is, I had only 2.5 weeks to prepare to address the allegations in the letter that the administration had the opportunity to work on for roughly 2.5 months (the MacKay Report was submitted on May 14; the Hooper Report was submitted on or about mid-June). The amount of time that I had to prepare for the meeting was further reduced because I received the letter on a Friday before a long weekend. Finally, I could not have my own copy of the Reports unless I agreed to be broadly gagged, which I declined.

In the sections that follow, I first describe my reaction when I read the MacKay and Hooper Reports. I then turn to the content of VPA Hemming’s letter of discipline to me.
When I first saw the MacKay and Hooper Reports, I suspected that Acadia University would not want the general public to have access to either of the Reports because even a cursory inspection of these Reports would make most reasonable people conclude that the university had to do away with due process in order to fire me.

For example, a fundamental principle of natural justice is that the accused person has the right to know the identity of their accuser(s). Contrary to this principle, the MacKay Report relies in part on anonymous submissions from both students and faculty. Second, most reasonable people would expect that a consistent procedure would be used in an investigation, especially when the investigation is being conducted by a well-renowned and respected professor of law. However, a cursory glance at the section that lists the people being interviewed for the MacKay Report reveals that there is one instance in which Professor MacKay interviews a group of three students and one instance where Professor MacKay interviews a group of two faculty members, as opposed to using a consistent procedure in which he interviewed only one person at a time. These are just two examples of how Professor MacKay did away with due process for his Report.

The Hooper Report consists in large part of analyses conducted by colleagues in my department on selected audio recordings of my classes, as opposed to an analysis of all of my classes or a random selection of my classes. The Hooper Report also investigates some of the same issues as the MacKay Report. The fact that multiple people processed the same issues and the fact that there was a lack of explicitly stated procedural guidelines at the outset of the two investigations calls into question the credibility of the two Reports. Because neither Report contains a section that explains how the procedures in each Report ensured fairness and objectivity, I have no choice but to conclude that the analyses and conclusions from the Reports are not credible. This would be analogous to the way a respectable scientific journal in psychology would outright reject a manuscript for review if it did not contain a Method section.

With regard to the content of the VPA’s letter, the letter was eight pages long and contained eight broad and unspecified categories of alleged deficiencies on my part. For example, the first category was “Unprofessional and non-collegial conduct directed at students, faculty, and administration, including the creation of a poisoned work environment”. This section contained six paragraphs of statements or actions on my part with which the administration disagreed, but VPA Hemming did not explain how my statements or actions created a so-called “poisoned work environment”. If the effects of the individual sections were cumulative, the letter did not explain how the different components built on one another to become cumulative.

In another part of her letter, VPA Hemming states that I had made posts on social media that were “potentially discriminatory and/or harassing”. I doubt that most reasonable people would understand what VPA Hemming even means when she makes this allegation of me making a post that is “potentially” harassing or discriminatory. When it comes to issues such as harassment and discrimination, most reasonable people view what they read as being binary (harassing or not harassing) rather than on a continuum. Furthermore, there has been no formal finding of me violating the university’s policies on harassment or discrimination. I thus do not understand the basis for the VPA’s allegation that I have engaged in any type of behaviour that is harassing or discriminatory.

Finally, the VPA’s letter gives the impression that she is selective when it comes to interpreting evidence that is used against me. For example, she used one submission from a potential student as evidence that I have damaged the university’s reputation, but ignored the submissions from people who support me who have argued that the university’s behaviour is damaging its reputation. Furthermore, when I met with the university administration on August 23, I referred to my invitation to and the talk that I gave at the ideacity conference as evidence that I have helped the university’s reputation. ideacity is a prestigious conference hosted by the Canadian media icon Moses Znaimer, who is an immigrant of Jewish descent. The talk that I gave (posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH0DlFLBdc4&t=45s) dealt with the issues of free speech and institutional transparency. Furthermore, a viewing of the video will demonstrate that my talk was well-received.

During the meeting that I had with the administration on the morning of August 23, I started the meeting by saying that I was responding in the spirit of a reasonable academic who has been making fair comment in full context (i.e., I was not misrepresenting myself or others). During the meeting, I responded to all of the allegations in the VPA’s letter and offered the following three concessions: 1) I offered to not be Facebook friends with students while they are in my courses so that the administration would not have to deal with potential complaints arising from this source in the future, 2) I said that I was happy to teach the small sections of Introductory Psychology and that the university could now offer students a choice as to whether they wanted to take the course with me or with the instructors teaching the large sections, and 3) I offered to move to another floor or even another building if my colleagues were uncomfortable working with me because I had a different point of view from them regarding social issues. The administration refused to even discuss what I had offered, much less tell me why what I was offering was unreasonable.

In the early evening on August 23, I received a letter from VPA Hemming stating that she was recommending to President Ricketts that I be dismissed. I also received a letter from President Ricketts that same evening stating that my dismissal hearing would be held on August 31.

When the dismissal meeting was held, the President reviewed the process that led to the hearing and gave me a brief overview of the allegations against me. I again reiterated the spirit in which I was attending the meeting and reiterated what I had offered on August 23. The administration again refused to tell me what was unreasonable about my offer or why it was insufficient. As well, the administration did not present me with any counterproposals. Instead, the administration took time to caucus from roughly 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm. At 3 pm, I was informed that the administration had decided to fire me. The President then reviewed the letter that he had written to me. At the end of the meeting, I returned my keys, employee card, and laptop to Safety and Security, and left the university.

In the letter that President Ricketts gave me at my dismissal hearing, he stated that he was firing me on the basis of issues that “were wide ranging and include failure to fufill [my] academic responsibilities, unprofessional conduct, breach of privacy, and harassment and intimidation of students and other members of the University community.” The key point to notice is that he refers to only broad categories of misconduct instead of providing any specific examples of misconduct on my part. Furthermore, he backs his claims by simply referring me to the letter by Vice President Academic (VPA) Heather Hemming dated August 3, 2018, and to the MacKay and Hooper Reports.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

At this stage, my union has filed for arbitration. I am going into the arbitration process with a sense of resolve because the outcome of my case will have national implications for academic freedom in Canada. This is because my dismissal is taking place in the broader context of a culture war that is taking place in academia in which universities are committing themselves to social justice. This change represents a fundamental change to the way in which universities function. If the function of a university is to allow for a free exchange of ideas, then it is imperative to ensure that all views can be expressed, discussed, and debated. I am going into this battle with the hope that the loss of my position can help to lead to a positive change in how Canadian universities are run and operated.

It is my sincere wish that my arbitration trial will help Canadian universities continue to be places in which people from all walks of life – including political orientation – can discuss ideas so that we as human beings can make progress on solving the complex problems of our time and the problems that will arise in the future.

~ “FINALLY!”, OR SO thought many interwar Germans. “The new chancellor has begun locking up & outlawing Socialists & Communists & their rowdy street gangs! Maybe we can have a little peace & quiet again.” Ah yes, the purge always starts out with the pesky & noisy ones. They never will be missed.

So what’s up with the current 2017-2018 rush to more internet censorship? Hint: this is NOT about pesky Alex Jones. He’s a canary in the freedom coalmine.

I said this (ITYS, exactly a year ago): Social Media Purge Ensues. And this semi-followup, in March this year: The Internet Ensilencing: Why Now? Brexit, Trump, and the uppity peasants learning what’s really going on in the world, and what their leaders & elites & celebrities are REALLY like. Can’t have that: FAKE NEWS FOR EVERYONE!

U.S. Midterms, Ahoy!

Conveniently, it’s only a few months before the all-important U.S. Midterm elections, and a referendum, as it were, on Trump. Hillary & Obama & their Democrat-Media-Internet cronies are still insanely mad & afraid of trial, still feeling the heat. GoogTwitFaceTube is now fully weaponized to control the flow of news & ideas leading up to November.

Twitter-bans, YouTube shadowbans, skewed Google searches, alt-media shut down, hidden, interfered with. It will only be getting worse. You will not not allowed to read or watch verboten ideas, as our Masters define them.

This is a new phase in the War On ALL Of Us. The Western Establishments are deadly serious about turning the internet & social media into commercials about themselves & how great they are. This is a major move towards more totalitarianism (with a smile) in the West.

~ YOU’LL NEVER guess what? Not only was Tommy Robinson just released from prison, but he also has been TOTALLY vindicated in the summary of the judgment by the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales. Huzzah!

The Judgment Is Damning

The reality of the matter? Tommy Robinson was vindicated, and proven right. His supporters & supporting commentators were proven right. His opponents were proven wrong, and in the case of the deliberate & constant political & legal establishment interference in his case, it seems they were also careless, malicious, and conspiratorial in their rush to judgment & imprisonment.

>> Robinson WAS unjustly & wrongly tried, rushed to judgment, and very hastily imprisoned. In prison, he was abused.

>> He was NOT given proper time or access to his lawyers to make a fair defence.

>> He was cruelly kept from seeing his children by an arbitrary prison policy.

>> The exact charges & reasons for such a long sentence were a muddle.

But Wait, It Gets Much Worse!

Further, he was moved from a “safer” prison, to one where (1) he was daily threatened with death, yelled at, spat upon, had feces pushed through his cell window, and physically psychologically abused, (2) Where there was a powerful Muslim inmate component, who made it clear they would try to kill him. (3) They also threatened his family. (4) In the last two months he was all but starved, losing 42 pounds.

He spent 2 months in solitary confinement, in order to avoid being murdered by Muslim prison gangs. Unspeakable abuse & mistreatment in a demon-clown failing political system out to get him. Clearly, Tommy Robinson was never supposed to be a problem again– murder by inmates would have silenced the pest. It’s happened before in the UK.

In the modern anarcho-terror state, the perps run free, and the innocent & those seeking justice will be punished, abused, and– as in Britain in 2017-2018, possibly even held as a political prisoner, like Tommy was. “Justice”– yeah, just like the show–trials in the Soviet Union, Nazi German, Communist China. “Fair” trial, then the execution-squad.

The First Link

It’s pretty obvious this was a political hit by the Establishment, acting through the courts. Who contacted the Judge in Leeds? Who told the prison-system to move Robinson into a more dire situation? There’s so many questions, and answers begging to be found.

This judge in Leeds [ Geoffrey Marson QC ] who did all this to Tommy & his family? A bad judge, serving the anarcho-terrorists in the English Establishment, who wanted to silence an embarrassing whistle-blower and provocateur. He should step down, and be formally reprimanded, IMHO. Dirty dirty dirty.

Remember: there are multiple layers to this fetid swamp-cake. Part of the reason the Muslim rape-groomers were ignored for three decades and more? The UK establishment itself is rotten with sex-abuse, cover-ups, and unspeakable deeds.

People such as Prince Andrew, and former British PM Tony Blair– amongst many other notable political and celebrity British & North American names– were visitors to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s “Satanic-cult Pedo Island” in the Caribbean.

Teh Binks

* Full disclosure: I am a friend of Ezra Levant. Briefly, I blogged over on Rebel.ca for no remuneration or benefits/ gifts, no signing over of my soul, no worldly glory and power whatsoever. A bunch of other Canadian bloggers did likewise, before the experiment was concluded.

~ U.S. POTUS TRUMP IS taking Them down.. slowly, carefully, taking the time to do it right. Read between the news-media lines.

In response, the legacy media is screaming like a klaxon to try and take President Trump down. They are also attacking citizen journalism, and alternative channels for news, analysis, and freeing your mind. Binks has already talked about this several times, so I get to do my special ITYS dance now (look away! spare the children!).

Oh, that kwazy Trump: So which is he? A total buffoon, or literally Hitler? Incompetent woman-abusing screw-up, or evil super-genius? Russian-puppet, or cunning Machiavellian? Take your pick via the poodle-media– as instructed by the Dempublican party, the Deep State, the corrupted part of the FBI, Clintonland, and the social media dark forces. Oh, and the globalists.

For all these, Trump is Public Enemy #1. Wonder why?

Point, O Windbag Elf?

Long story short: here’s what you are not being told. Hang onto your wigs.

> Trump (DJT) is going to take down/ expose the Clintons & their slush-funds & their child-trafficking & many crimes.

> DJT’s infamous Twitter messages are part of his plan, not random lunacy.

> DJT is going to clean up the FBI/ CIA.

> DJT is going to expose the political assassins operating in America.

What The Literal Monkey?!

I respond with one question: Who Is Q? No, not the guy from the Bond, James Bond movies (Sean Connery forever, BTW).

Q, or Q-Anon is a group of top-clearance military intelligence folks, and some civilians. They work together to lay out to the public the map of what is really happening in America today. Q-Anon releases news hints & indicators of what’s important via message boards. Usually, Q predicts or highlights it, and the exact news & events happen.

Deny! Deflect! Defame! Repeat!

Right now, the media is panicking, because the whole rotten structure they protect & prop up is under threat.. hence the loud quacking and attempts at distraction & attempted moral panics and the usual mind-control. Ignore the noise: look at what they attack, or cover up & ignore.

Digital Big Censor has also stepped up with fresh efforts to stop the signal, to prevent the peasants from thinking, learning, and asking to be ruled properly. FaceBook, Google, Twitter, YouTube are all in on it. It is not a conspiracy when it’s blatant, and out in the open.

So Very Carefully

However, telling the public all this stuff takes time and much wisdom. Likewise, Jesus didn’t show up in a blaze of divine glory and bellow “I’m God. Deal, bitches.” The Saviour preached & taught & used captivating stories; renewed people’s minds and hearts by grace, and asked people to come and see, to follow him.

Same with this coming political revolution, which– if successful– will have world-wide consequences. The truth has to be unfolded over time, so everything doesn’t fall down at once, and people aren’t simply overwhelmed.

To Clarify & Conclude

I don’t like or seek out conspiracy theories. I am more interested in what has been called “Coincidence Theories”.. how things and people & their goals often fit together to certain ends.

~ MY BELOVED Canada has been– longer than the Trudeaus, but sped up by them both– in a long slow fall away from our founding principles, towards every excess, bad idea, and anti-Christian notion on the books.

This sermon is a lovely thunderbolt of warning to awaken, fight, and work with God to stand on guard, keep our land glorious and free. Or fall.

SUNDAY, JULY 1, 2018

No Upbeat Homily for Canada Day

Canada Day only falls on Sunday once every seven years. That’s an opportunity for an upbeat homily about our beautiful country and our many blessings. But not this year—because we need to take a look at some things that are happening in Canada and what they mean for Christians.

I know you’d rather hear a homily celebrating Canada than criticizing it; so would I. But a friend sent me a quotation this week attributed to Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who was not only America’s best preacher but a 20th century prophet. When I read it, I knew I couldn’t deliver a feel-good sermon today.

Long quotations don’t make good homilies, but I’m asking you to listen carefully to these prophetic words:

Humanity in a crisis is generally insensitive to the gravity of the times in which it lives.

Men do not want to believe their own times are wicked, partly because they have no standard outside of themselves by which to measure their times. If there is no fixed concept of justice, how shall men know it is violated?

Only those who live by faith really know what is happening in the world; the great masses without faith are unconscious of the destructive processes going on because they have lost the vision of the heights from which they have fallen.

I don’t think one Canadian in ten thinks we have a problem in this country. And I do think that most of those who recognize the destructive processes at work are people of faith.

But even men and women of faith often fail to understand the heights from which Canadian society has tumbled, because our fall from Christian morality has happened in slow motion—not from one cause but from many.
We could analyze numerous social shifts that are opposed to Gospel values—for that matter, opposed to the values shared by most major religions—but I want to point out three of the most recent.

I

The first, of course, is euthanasia. Disguised by the Orwellian name “Medical Assistance in Dying,” the legalization of assisted suicide threatens the vulnerable, draws health care workers in to a moral snare, and creates an entirely false idea of compassion. It should not be necessary to remind people at Sunday Mass that assisted suicide can never be the right choice, but our first reading puts it simply: “God does not delight in the death of the living.”

Life is a good in and of itself— God “created all things so that they might exist.” All life is precious; its value is not measured by the so-called “quality of life” or anything of that sort.

We were created for eternity, and it is in eternity that the quality of life will more than compensate for the struggles some people encounter at the end of their life on earth.

Before turning to the second social shift—I should really call these legal shifts—I want to give you another reason for this somber homily on what should be a joyful day. The reason is simply this: law-abiding people, people like us, tend to think that if something’s legal is must be right. Law not only reflects social values, it creates them.

Archbishop Carney once told me that chicken wasn’t subject to meat rationing during the Second World War. As a result, Catholics—who were not allowed to eat meat on Friday—started to eat chicken, since if the government said it wasn’t meat, it must be true.

II

The second shift is the redefinition of tolerance. Canadians pride themselves on tolerance. American comedians on the late-night shows make jokes about how nice we are. But my dictionary says that to tolerate means “to allow the existence or occurrence of something, without interference.”

The courts have redefined tolerance in numerous decisions interfering with the freedom of people of faith. The most recent may be the most serious: the Supreme Court of Canada has effectively allowed the legal profession to be closed to graduates of a law school where students must commit to live according to the moral norms that were once universally held by all Christians. In the words of the two dissenting judges, the Court has turned the protective shield of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into a sword.

And there’s not much doubt which group of Canadians that sword will slash.

III

The third source of sadness on this Canada Day may surprise you, since it’s hardly as grave as the euthanasia or Trinity Western decisions. But as I told you, I’m focusing on the most recent social shifts, and this one’s also current—the court-ordered legalization of marijuana, now enshrined in law.

Just last week, the Canadian bishops issued a statement reminding Catholics of the harm that will flow from increased marijuana use. They cite the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, and the Canadian Paediatric Society as pointing out how “the use of cannabis is linked to addictions, depression, anxiety, psychosis, damage to brain development, and lung problems such as asthma and emphysema.”

Although I didn’t use marijuana, I grew up hearing that it was not addictive. That was a lie or at least a huge mistake in terms of what we know now. The bishops rely on modern science and the modern understanding of addictions when they say marijuana “is an addictive substance that will have disastrous effects” for many people.

There was a time when a Canadian who didn’t break the law would be following God’s law in most matters. Sadly, tragically, that time has passed. Only the Creator’s law can guide us now to the good life, and to the righteousness that leads to life eternal.

It is truer than ever that

“Only those who live by faith really know what is happening in the world; the great masses without faith are unconscious of the destructive processes going on because they have lost the vision of the heights from which they have fallen.”

So on this Canada Day, let’s not only pray for the nation, but lift up our eyes to the lofty vision of creation and the human person that is our heritage as Canadians and Christians.

Unfortunately, we must comply to keep WordPress.com accessible for everyone in the region. As a result, your site and some of its media files are now inaccessible for Internet visitors originating from Pakistan. They will instead see a message explaining why the content was blocked.

Visitors from outside of Pakistan are not affected.

You and your readers may be interested in these suggestions for bypassing Internet restrictions.

For your reference, we have included a copy of the complaint. No reply is necessary, but please let us know if you have any questions.

— Begin complaint — Dear WordPress Team,

I am writing on behalf of Web Analysis Team of Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) which has been designated for taking appropriate measures for regulating Internet Content in line with the prevailing laws of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

In lieu of above it is highlighted that few of the webpages hosted on your platform are extremely Blasphemous and are hurting the sentiments of many Muslims around Pakistan. The URL’s mentioned are clearly in violation of Section 37 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and Section 19 of Constitution of Pakistan.

You are requested to contribute towards maintaining peace and harmony in the world by discontinuation of hosting of these websites for viewership in Pakistan with immediate effect. We will be happy to entertain any query if deemed necessary and looking forward for your favorable response at your earliest.

~ I’M NOT A YUGE murder-mystery fan. If I ever DO disappear, it was the Wife: she loves such stuff, and “gets” them. Not me.

I’ll watch a such a show or read a book, and I’m just as utterly baffled– who did what how when and why– at the beginning, as at the end. Binks? More of a cool cop-show guy: perps, detectives, raids, take-downs.. which is probably why I’m binging Brooklyn Nine-Nine on NetFlix these days.. despite all the vice-signalling on various sexual & political topics, as usual in modern TeeVee.

Right now the giant deranged hooting-party about “Teh Precious Immigrant Children” is the flimsy excuse & distraction engineered to enthrall the masses. The real story is still out there, full of perps, creeps, cronies, conspiracies galore, cover-ups, dirty money, and deepest blackest-hearted treachery.

You’d think it would be 24-7 headlines, like the comparatively smaller crimes of Nixon’s WaterGate were, 40-some years ago. Nope. A compliant media used to boosting Clinton, Obama, and Clinton 2.0, The Witchening has been notably AWOL.

How AWOL? By dutifully pointing in every direction but the important one, because they are supporting their tribe: the Fakemocracy Deep State & Democrats. Their game is distraction: the very finest & fakest of news.

The prize in this real-life mystery/ murder/ espionage drama? The fate of the United States, and the world. Big stakes.

Shrugs All Round?

Your response may be “Meh, I’m not a Trump fan”, or “I’m just not that into politics”. You may not be interested in politics, but politics is very interested in you. International Crime-Boss Hillary Clinton nearly won the super-crooked uber-fixed 2016 Presidential via Collusion with the FBI, amongst many other illegal and traitorous people & groups (including Obama). What kind of police state would America be morphing into right now, under these people, willing to do such things?

How would the world be, under the soft fascist grip of Hillary, Her FBI/KGB, a compliant radicalized Vatican, and the tentacles of the Deep State & unchecked Criminal Conspiracy running the world? Shudder.

The following exposé was originally posted as an excellent comment on Facebook by Lisa Frank.

There is an additional exposé on James Comey which presents an ironclad case against him for dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice and official misconduct as follows:DETAILING THE COMMISSION OF COMEY CRIMES

State of the Nation
May 18, 2017

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Subject: Dropping the Hammer on Comey…Brilliant!

There are very few crime/mystery novels that approach this true story for compelling drama, intrigue and brinkmanship (with the nation in the balance).

Don’t believe the fake-media story that Trump made a mistake or huge gaffe by firing Comey.

Don’t believe the media narrative from the left that it was an attempt to silence Comey from some investigation into Trump.

Don’t believe the RINO narrative that Comey is a good guy just trying to do his job in terrible circumstances and the timing was bad.

Don’t believe the lie that Comey was admired and respected by career FBI investigators and agents.

Don’t believe the lie that Trump’s “tweets” are not professional and have no strategic purpose. His tweets are weaponized and deadly.

James Comey is a poisonous snake of the highest order… a deep-water Swamp Denizen who has been highly paid to deliberately provide cover for high-level corruption by the Clintons and Obama. He has been central to trying to destroy the Trump campaign and then the Trump administration from the start. He is as dirty as they come in DC. He had highest-level cover (the FBI no less) and was deep into an effort to eliminate Trump. Trump had to move hard, fast, and at exactly the right time to cut the head off the snake without getting bitten by the snake or being finished by the other swamp denizens.

Begin by noticing how the President fired Comey when Comey was 3,000 miles away from his office, that Comey had no inkling he was being cut, that all his files, computers, and everything in his office were seized by his boss Sessions and the justice department. This was not a violation of protocol, it was tactical. Notice how Prez Trump compartmentalized the strike and did not inform any of his White House “staff” to prevent leaks. Notice how he emasculated Comey and the swamp denizens by letting them know in a tweet that the Attorney General got information (surveillance “tapes” from the seizure of Comey’s office) to let Comey and his handlers know that Trump’s DOJ has the goods on them. This was a brilliant, strategic and totally imperative move at exactly the right time against horrible, evil and corrupt powers infesting our government.

The swamp is on notice that the President is on to them, they are sweating bullets because their criminal games of corruption are being pursued and they know it. They are screaming and ranting because they are desperate denizens of the swamp who are beginning to realize they are roadkill.

THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE COMEY SCAM. Taken from credible public sources (readily available if you want to look or want me to sent them to you), with a few reasonable “fill in the blank” conclusions of my own.

The Highlights:

Comey was a minor assistant US attorney in the late 90’s. He only gained power and money by being the DOJ official who “investigated” and cleared Bill Clinton of any wrong-doing in Clinton’s totally corrupt pardon (for huge payoffs) of criminal financier Marc Rich as Clinton was leaving the Presidency. This is how Comey began his career as a creature of the “swamp” years ago, as a servant of the Clintons.

Comey provided “cover” for the Clintons in their gaining incredible power and wealth after leaving office through pardoning a billionaire money-launderer, arms dealer and criminal. Comey was a key piece in how the Clintons upped their corruption game and gained incredible wealth through their foundation after leaving the White House. A huge part of the scheme was giving Marc Rich a free pass when he should have spent life in prison, and that is what Comey covered-up for the Clintons. This set up Comey to be part of the corruption machine, making him powerful and wealthy.

Immediately after doing the Clinton’s dirty work as a DOJ official, Comey resigned from the DOJ and took a position as the head attorney (Counsel) of the Lockheed Martin company, a huge military contractor. While he was in that position Lockheed became a major contributor (millions) to the Clinton Foundation and its fake charity spin-offs. In return for these payment to Clinton Inc., Lockheed received huge contracts with Hillary’s state department. Comey was the chief legal officer of Lockheed throughout this period of contributions to Clinton Inc. in return for State Dept. contracts.

In late 2012, after overseeing Lockheed’s successful relationship with the Hillary State Department and the resulting profits, Comey stepped down from Lockheed and received a $6 million dollar payout for his services.

In 2013, the largest bank of England, HSBC Holdings, was deep into a scandal. Investigations by federal authorities and law-enforcement had revealed that for years HSBC had been laundering billions of dollars for Mexican Drug Cartels, channeling money for Saudi banks who were financing terror, moving money for Iran in violation of the sanctions, and other major criminal activity. HSBC’s criminality was pervasive and deliberate by the Bank and its officials. HSBC was a huge Clinton Foundation contributor (many millions) throughout the “investigation” and Bill Clinton was being paid large personal fees for speaking at HSBC events (while Hillary was Sec of State). Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department did what they were paid to do, and let HSBC off of the hook for a paltry 1.2 Billion dollar fine (paid by its stockholders), and not one Director, officer or management member at HSBC was fired or charged with any criminal. Exactly when everyone involved with HSBC Bank (including the Clintons and all of their “donors”) were being let off without penalty, and cover had to be provided to HSBC, Comey was appointed as a Director and Member of the Board of HSBC (in the middle of the fallout from the scandal). He was part of the effort to cover up the scandal and make HSBC “respectable” again.

After about a year as HSBC director, despite his lack of any law enforcement experience, no DOJ leadership experience, and no qualifications for the job, Comey was appointed FBI director by Obama. The only qualification Comey had was that the Clinton’s and their cronies knew Comey was in bed with them, was compromised and was willing to do their dirty work. Comey was appointed to the FBI right when Hillary was leaving the State Department, and was vulnerable to the FBI because she had been using a private-server, mis-handling classified information, selling access to favors/contracts from the State Department to Clinton Foundation Donors (including Comey’s Lockheed Martin), and much more. Remember that this was about the time the Inspector General of the State Department found over 2 billion “missing” from the State Department finances during Hillary’s tenure.

The obvious conclusion is that Comey was appointed to the FBI (along with other reliable Clinton-Obama cronies) to run interference for the Clinton’s and Obama’s at the nation’s federal law enforcement agency (in conjunction with a corrupt Department of Justice). Comey was and is owned by the Clintons. He owed all of his power and wealth to being part of their machine and providing them with cover.

In late 2015 and early 2016, information began to come out about the Clinton Foundation and its use by the Clinton’s as a multi-billion dollar slush fund for corruption and political favors (even Chelsea’s wedding had been paid for by the “charity). This was right as Hillary was beginning her campaign for President. It was revealed that the Foundation had never completed required reports or had an audit. Supposedly the FBI, under Comey, began an “investigation” of the Clinton Funds. A “professional” accounting firm was brought in by the Clintons to do a review, file some reports, make recommendations to the Clinton Foundation Board, and provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Clinton Fund operations. Predictably, one of the partners in the firm that was chosen (and paid lots of money) is the brother of James Comey (FBI Director). This brother owes James Comey $700,000 for a loan James gave him to buy a house, and presumably some of the money from the Clinton Fund was used to make payments to James on the loan. Over 2 years later and nothing has happened as a result of the FBI “investigating” the Clinton Funds under Comey.

No one in congress or federal law enforcement was intending to actually pursue the Clintons, but Judicial Watch and other independent sources obtained information proving that Hillary had been running her own server, sending out classified information, etc. This information began to come out right in the middle of her campaign to be coronated as President. A “show” investigation had to be performed to appear to look into it and clear her. Who to use?…the reliable shill James Comey.

As head of the FBI, Comey (and his lackeys in key positions) deliberately screwed up the investigation into Hillary’s use of a private server and her plain violation of national security law on classified information. The investigation was deliberately mis-handled in every aspect. Comey gave immunity to all of Hillary’s lackeys, did not use subpoenas or warrants, lost evidence, allowed the destruction of evidence, failed to do any searches or seizures of evidence, did not use a grand-jury, did not swear witnesses, did not record testimony, allowed attorneys to represent multiple suspects (corrupting the testimony). Everything that could be done to ruin the FBI investigation and to cover for Hillary was done. A “slam-dunk” case became a mess. Immunity was given every witness even though they provided no help. Maybe more importantly, by focusing the FBI on the email scandal, attention was drawn away from the much bigger scandal of the Clinton Foundation that could bring down a huge number of corrupt politicians, lobbyists, and even governments.

Originally, Comey’s job was simply to totally botch the Hillary investigation and ruin the case against her and her minions within the FBI regarding he emails. At the same time Comey also started work on a parallel assignment to illegally “wiretap” and surveil Donald Trump and every other person involved in the Republican campaign. He was tasked with digging up any dirt or fact that could be used to hurt the Trump campaign later. This included using a fake “dossier” paid for by the Clinton campaign to obtain authorization for the surveillance and to try to associate Trump’s campaign with the Russians. Under Comey’s direction the Trump/Republican campaign was monitored and surveilled and all information was provided to the Obama Whitehouse and the Clinton camp all during the campaign.

Lorretta Lynch was supposed to complete the coverup for Hillary as Attorney General by issuing a finding that the deliberately botched FBI “investigation” did not justify prosecution of Hillary. But someone screwed up and Bill Clinton was video’d meeting with Loretta Lynch in Arizona shortly before she was supposed to make her decision on Hillary (interference with a federal investigation), and Lynch could no longer credibly squash the Hillary scandal. The solution, give the job to James. The Clinton’s owned him and he would have to do whatever is necessary to provide cover.

Comey goes on national TV and violates every rule of the FBI, the Justice Department and American law enforcement by revealing some of the FBI’s “evidence” of what Hillary did (enough to make it look like the FBI and Comey did some investigation), then declaring that there was no “intent” and clearing Hillary. He did what he was ordered to do. The Justice Department and Obama backed Comey’s coverup and it looked like Hillary had survived the scandal.

Then, right before the election, the NYPD obtained pervert Anthony Wiener’s laptop and found classified emails from Hillary on the laptop. The NYPD began leaking details to new media outlets, and the story was about to explode. Comey once again stepped in to cover Hillary. He short-circuited the NYPD leaks by publicly acknowledging the laptop and the emails, but then claimed just days later that hundreds of thousands of emails had all been reviewed and “nothing new” was on the laptop. Once again, he had done his job. Providing cover and FBI “protection” for Hillary on the newest scandal when it broke.

If Hillary had won, Comey would have kept right on providing cover for the corruption of the Clinton machine. He would have kept the FBI paralyzed, prevented the Clinton Fund from being investigated, and continued to do his job as the Clinton’s personal scandal eraser at the FBI.

BUT TRUMP WON.

The Swamp and its bottom-dwelling denizens realize they are at risk from this political outsider who is not connected to the uni-party machines. Before Trump takes office, a “failsafe” plan is implemented to ruin Trump’s administration and try to force him out of the Presidency. The key players committed to the plan are the Democrat politicians, the RINO establishment, the media, the Obama-Clinton operatives imbedded throughout the intelligence agencies and the entire bureaucracy, and most importantly, the Obama DOJ and JAMES COMEY. The scheme is to smear Trump with Russian “connections,” through a fake FBI “investigation” and more importantly, to trap him into a charge of criminal interference with the FBI. COMEY IS THE CENTRAL FIGURE IN THE SCHEME TO TAKE DOWN TRUMP.

The surveillance of the Trump campaign is continued after he is elected, all participants are “unmasked” illegally, and the transcripts are leaked throughout the government and to the media. When General Flynn appropriately calls Russian officials on behalf of Trump, they brush off the old fake “dossier” and all of the surveillance of the campaign, and Comey creates the “Russian Conspiracy” investigation. With help by RINO swamp kingpin and warmonger sell-out McCain, the fake “Russian pee dossier” is leaked to the press. There is no actual evidence of any collusion or connection between Trump or his campaign with Russia, but that does not prevent Comey from initiating an “investigation” at the FBI. This provides Comey with protection from Trump firing him immediately. Comey (or his minions) constantly leak news of the “Russia Investigation” to the media, and the media does its scripted part by screaming constantly about “Russia”. The Democrats fill their roles and constantly scream about “Russia.” McCain and the RINO establishment do their part by promising to “investigate” how the Russians influenced the campaign.

Immediately after Trump is sworn in, the DOJ Hillary/Obama operatives and Comey start the direct attack. This is before Sessions has been appointed to the Department of Justice and the DOJ is still controlled by Obama operatives. DOJ Obama appointee Sally Yates approaches the White House with news that General Flynn had been in contact with Russia and alleges that he might be compromised. She reveals that there is an FBI “investigation” into the Russia ties (which they are constantly leaking to the media themselves). The White House Counsel (who Yates talks to, not Trump) asks for some more information.

The day before the promised additional information is to be provided by Yates to the Whitehouse, Comey sets up a dinner with Trump. If he can get Trump to ask about Flynn or try to intervene regarding Flynn or Russia, then Trump can be charged with “interfering with an FBI investigation.” MY OPINION IS THAT COMEY SURVEILLED AND “TAPED” THIS MEETING IN HIS ATTEMPT TO SET UP TRUMP.

This is a two-pronged attack. It protects Comey and DOJ Democrat holdovers from being terminated by the new administration because they are involved in an “ongoing investigation” that they control the timetable on (albeit one with absolutely no evidence). If Trump fires Comey then he is “interfering with the investigation” which is itself a federal crime that the FBI could then “investigate.” Alternatively, if they can get Trump to question Comey about Flynn or try to get him to back off of Flynn or the “Russia” investigation, then they again have him “interfering.”

Trump knows it is a set up by Comey and that he is probably being recorded (tips from FBI or DOJ who are not part of the corruption?) Maybe because his phone calls in the White House as President have already been bugged and released to the media (FBI is in the best position to do this). Maybe because he was used to the Mafia in NY trying to shake him down every time he built a hotel. Comey tells Trump that Trump is not under investigation regarding Russia, but that others involved with the campaign are being investigated. Trump does not take the bait and attempt to intervene about Flynn or the Russia scam. Later, Flynn is cut loose because he is being used by Comey and the Obama-holdover Justice to try to damage Trump. He did nothing wrong, but if he stayed, the charge of “interfering with an investigation” might seem to have teeth. Comey verbally tells Trump on two more occasions that he is not being investigated, but refuses to state this fact publicly or when testifying in Congress.

Trump knows everything I have gone through above about Comey. But he has to move carefully. He has to get his Attorney General and Deputy AG in place, get enough leverage on the Russia narrative, and ideally get rid of Comey in a way that allows him to obtain all the information that Comey has been accumulating (if he is taping Trump, he is taping others). Comey, and others testify in Congress. Under oath, both Sally Yates and Intelligence officials from the Obama administration state that there has been no actual evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. More importantly, Comey, while refusing to say that Trump is not under investigation, testifies that he has informed the Senate Intelligence Committee heads who exactly is under investigation regarding Russia.

Trump tells almost no one at the White House that he is moving against Comey (so no leaks… no listening in on his conversations). Trump somehow contacts Sen. Grassley (the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee) and confirms that Comey told the Senator that Trump was not under investigation personally. Trump gets both the Attorney General and the new Deputy Attorney General to legitimately review Comey’s unprofessional actions at the FBI and to recommend in writing that Trump terminate Comey. Somehow Comey goes to California (at the request of AG Sessions or already scheduled and someone at FBI telling Trump?).

Trump seizes the moment and acts. While Comey is in California, 2300 miles away and 7 hours from his office, Trump prepares a letter firing him (with Sessions and the Deputy AG recommendations attached). In the letter Trump states that he had been told 3 times by Comey that he (Trump) was not under investigation. The letter is hand-delivered to the FBI headquarters by DOJ officials to lock-down and seize everything in Comey’s office, including all surveillance files (“tapes”) of Trump and others. All of Comey’s files, docs, computers and “tapes” are taken to Sessions at DOJ. They are not taken to the White House or Trump, but to Sessions, who has every right to have them. Sessions can tell Trump that Comey had surveillance tapes of Trump that contradict what Comey has been telling Trump, and perhaps tapes of conversations with other swamp “conspirators.” But Trump does not have them personally or at the White House.

Comey learns he has been fired when the media broadcasts it in California. He had no idea it was coming and he is ticked. On cue, the Democrat politicians and media begin screaming about Trump’s “interference with the Russia investigation” in accordance with the plan to set up Trump for that charge. The Swamp wants to blow up the Russia narrative using Comey, and Comey is set to testify before Congress to try to hurt Trump by saying he was interfering with the FBI investigation. Comey intends to follow through with the plan to take down Trump.

But because of his brilliant timing on this, Trump has Comey’s files, documents and information safely with Sessions at DOJ. Trump sends out a “crazy” tweet that says: “James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press.”

The media and the politicians go crazy about the “inappropriateness” of this tweet. They accuse Trump of “taping” everyone at the White House (forgetting that the President’s phone calls with foreign leaders have been “taped” without his knowledge.)

Notice that Trump did not say he taped anyone, or that he has any tapes at the White House. It seem apparent that Trump is telling Comey that the DOJ (who has every legal right to possess it) has the surveillance information and files from Comey’s office, the “tapes” obtained and kept by Comey. Comey and all the Swamp Creatures understand the clear message… their plan has failed and Trump’s DOJ is now holding all the cards.

The whole Russian interference scheme crashes and burns. While the mouthpiece media, Hollywood and the insane fringe continue to scream about Russia and Comey being fired, the politicians who will soon be in the crosshairs of a legitimate (and ticked) FBI and DOJ are starting to fall strangely silent. Comey realizes all the leverage is with Trump and that he will be lucky if he is not added to the Clinton Death List because of his knowledge (better not take any baths near an electrical outlet or get on any airplanes).

Comey tells Congress he will not testify and writes a public letter to the FBI accepting his firing and telling them he does not want to discuss why or how he was terminated. Senator Grassley and Senator Feinstein (she must be covering her butt in fear …) issue public statements confirming that Comey told them that the “Russia Investigation” does not involve President Trump personally.

AG Sessions and his Deputy AG use the Comey trove of information to determine who has been part of the Comey Syndicate at the FBI. They will be appointing an “interim” Director of the FBI shortly who has not been compromised by Comey, Clinton or Obama. That “interim” Director does not have to be approved by Congress or anyone, and can immediately begin cleaning house at the FBI of all Comey/Clinton/Obama minions, initiating investigations of the Clintons, Clinton Fund, violations of intelligence confidentiality laws by Susan Rice and Obama, human trafficking in DC, political corruption… draining the Swamp.

Using the Comey files they can be fairly certain they are not getting another Comey as an “interim”, and they do not have to wait for the circus of appointing a new permanent “Director” through Congressional approval. Most of the heavy lifting on rooting out FBI corruption and starting investigations into the swamp will be done by the “interim” before a new director is appointed. I suspect the Trump administration hopes the approval FBI Director process will be slow and tedious, so there is no political interference with the housecleaning that is starting.

In one masterstroke, Trump has eliminated a truly toxic and dangerous enemy to his administration and our country, dealt a horrendous blow to the Clinton/Obama camp and Deep State machines, begun the restoration of the integrity of the FBI and the DOJ, and gained incredible ammunition to begin hunting the foul creatures in the swamp.